A Trademark Certificate Is Not Protection: Enforcing Brands in Vietnam

A trademark certificate gives you a right. It does not defend that right for you. According to Stephen Le, Lead Counsel of Le & Tran, that part is on the owner, and it is where brand protection really starts. Plenty of foreign businesses hold valid Vietnamese registrations and still watch counterfeits move through the market, because a certificate in a drawer stops nobody.

Vietnam is a first-to-file country, so enforcement is built on a registered mark, unregistered rights carrying weight only where a mark can be proven well-known. But registration is where protection starts, not where it ends: a registered mark gives you standing to act; what it will not do is act on its own.

Four routes, and what each one delivers

Administrative action is the first-line route for most trademark disputes in Vietnam. Rather than suing, a rights holder complains to a competent authority, such as the market surveillance body, which can investigate, seize infringing goods and impose fines. It is comparatively fast and cost-efficient, but punishes the infringer and stops the conduct without compensating the owner for losses.

Civil litigation is slower and more demanding, but the only route that puts money back in the owner's hands, through an injunction, destruction of infringing goods and damages.

Criminal enforcement is available because, unlike most other IP rights, trademark counterfeiting on a commercial scale can be treated as a crime in Vietnam. For an owner up against an organised counterfeiter, even the threat of a referral is real leverage.

Customs border measures let an owner record its mark with Vietnam Customs, which can then hold suspected shipments before they reach the market. Recordation is now a prerequisite for proactive border seizures, so for brands worried about imported fakes it is a first step, not an afterthought.

The routes are less alternatives than a sequence. A single counterfeiter might warrant an administrative raid to gather evidence, then a civil claim for damages, with a criminal referral held in reserve. This is the kind of sequencing experienced IP litigation counsel plans at the outset rather than assembles reactively.

What the 2026 IP law changed

Anyone working from older guidance should know the ground shifted. The 2025 Amended IP Law, in effect from 1 April 2026, and its decrees reshaped enforcement in favour of rights holders. Since July 2025, IP cases in Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City are heard by judges who focus on intellectual property rather than generalists, addressing a long-standing tendency toward prolonged cases, inconsistent rulings and a high rate of reversal. The damages framework has been raised, including statutory damages of up to VND 1 billion where actual loss cannot be quantified. Courts can now order takedown or blocking of digital content and accounts connected to an infringement, in appropriate cases before a final judgment. Implementing decrees also raised the ceiling on administrative fines, clarified the threshold for criminal referral, and simplified customs recordation for border seizures.

It comes down to evidence

Whatever route an owner chooses, enforcement turns on proof: that the mark is registered and valid, that the defendant uses an identical or confusingly similar sign on related goods, and, where damages are sought, that loss has been suffered and can be quantified. In the civil system, an assessment conclusion from the national IP assessment body carries considerable weight. None of it can be improvised once infringement is discovered.

At Le & Tran, our IP litigation team helps foreign businesses protect and enforce their trademarks in Vietnam. Enquiries can be directed to info@letranlaw.com.